National will be happy that the tobacco industry will retain robust profits.
Nicotine is 10 times more addictive than heroin or cocaine and 6 to 8 times more addictive than alcohol.
Once again, thank your stupid uncle for voting for National.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
37 points (97.4% liked)
Public Health
375 readers
1 users here now
For issues concerning:
- Public Health
- Global Health
- Health Systems & Policy
- Environmental Health
- Epidemiology
- etc.
π©Ί This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.
Related Communities
- Medical Community Hub
- Medicine
- Medicine Canada
- Premed
- Premed Canada
- Public Health (π)
See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link ([email protected])
Rules
Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.
Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content
Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 49 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
No one sucks a cock for a few cigarettes. Your claims are ridiculous nonsense. Nicotine is harmful, cigarettes are terrible and difficult to quit, but they are not 10 times more addictive than heroin, christ.
How addictive it is doesn't translate as to how harmful it can be to your psyche and/or how bad the withdrawal effects are, which is what translates into people doing crazy shit for heroin, for example.
It is also ignoring how much easier you can get nicotine, compared to heroin.
This is an incredibly short sighted comment.
Uh, I did not say cigarettes are good, or deny that they are harmful to many aspects of your health. I am simply pointing out that claiming they are as addictive as heroin is ridiculous and stupid.
Withdrawals from cigarettes are not the same thing, they just aren't. I cannot believe I even need to say this. How is this conversation a thing?
It minimizes any actual discourse on the issue because anyone with half a brain is going to see that.
A better way to encourage change is to use real, actual facts.
I precisely said that withdrawals aren't the same between the two. You simply don't understand how something can be more or less addictive, while the addictions can have radically different effects and consequences.
You can literally die from alcohol withdrawal, while that could never happen for nicotine withdrawal and yet, nicotine is much more addictive than alcohol, IE you get addicted to it much more easily.
How addictive it is doesn't translate as to how harmful it can be to your psyche and/or how bad the withdrawal effects are
Yes it does? "In the context of criteria for addiction of dependence presented by the World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association, and the US Surgeon General, we consider several lines of evidence, including patterns of mortality, physical dependence potential, and pharmacologic addiction liability measures.".
It is also ignoring how much easier you can get nicotine, compared to heroin.
Availability isn't something utilized to measure a substance's potential for addiction. It's a factor when we evaluate how widespread the addiction may become, but not for how addicted an individual will be.
This is an incredibly short sighted comment.
This has been an incredibly inaccurate comment.
Not sure why you are being down voted, you are completely correct
Most "facts" surrounding drug addiction are just marketing schemes that lobbyists like DARE have claimed over the years.
No nicotine is not 10x more addictive than cocaine, and no it's not more addictive than heroin. As others have said addiction is measured in different ways, but the most important modifier is withdrawal symptoms. Compared to nicotine or cocaine, heroin withdrawal is several magnitudes worse, and the only one that can kill you.
No one sucks a cock for a few cigarettes.
I bet no one would suck cock for crack if they carried it at the Circle K and you could find crack butts in ashtrays.
No one sucks a cock for a few cigarettes
That's not what your mom said last night.
Have an updoot.
New Zealand has passed a bill to ban those aged 14 and under from ever legally buying cigarettes in an effort to make the country smoke free by 2025.
That's the gist of the law, for the curious. It established a cap on the year the person was born in order to consume tobacco. The rationale is that of you've never smoked, you won't miss it, so in a couple generations the country goes smoke free.
Smokers unaffected by the ban are up in arms for some reason? Can someone explain why would they care?
Good. It's not the governments place to ban people from making unhealty decisions when they don't affect others.
In a country with universal healthcare this is simply not true. Smoking increases your risk of many health problems, many of them with very expensive long term treatments. That money could be better spent on increasing access to other aspects of healthcare for everyone.
many of them with very expensive long term treatments.
Smokers die before spending anywhere near as much as non-smokers' old age care.
Thatβs what taxes are for. Tax the sh*t out of cigarettes to account for the increased public health spending. Banning a substance is not the only, neither the best, solution to addiction.
How far does this go though.... Should we still be able to use asbestos in literally everything? Why not just tax it?
Part of the responsibility of the government is to protect the health of its population, particularly from industries that profit from leeching funding from the public.
Well, asbestos are not banned and they are actually pretty toughly regulated. So maybe find a better analogy.
Pedantry....
EPA also banned new uses of asbestos which prevent new asbestos products from entering the marketplace after August 25, 1989
Iβm sorry my response came out pedantic, it was not my intention. But I stand by my comment. Asbestos hasnβt been fully banned in USA.
Notice how much work the βnew usesβ is doing in that sentence.
Some articles on it:
Even though asbestos is known to cause deadly diseases, the U.S. still allows companies to import hundreds of tons of the raw mineral. It is primarily used by two chemical manufacturers, OxyChem and Olin Corp., in the production of chlorine
The EPA has missed some legislative deadlines to enact the ban but says it will finalize the regulation by October.
(Deadline they missed, again)
https://www.propublica.org/article/asbestos-ban-poisoning-workers-factories
Asbestos hasnβt been fully banned in USA.
Right, but are we assuming that a ban on nicotine would ban all commercial uses of it, or just the sale of it as a consumable?
Nicotine has plenty of non-consumable applications as well such as its capabilities as a pesticide.
used by two chemical manufacturers, OxyChem and Olin Corp., in the production of chlorine
Yes, as a reagent that doesn't come in contact with the general public. They aren't selling asbestos, they're selling a byproduct of one of its chemical reactions.
I yield. Thanks for the information!
Haha, no reason to turn it into a contest or anything. Just two people exchanging different perspectives for educational purposes. Though I do commend you for your mental plasticity. Not many people possess the mental flexibility to change their opinions based on newly introduced information anymore. Cheers.
Oof, this is the only valid argument against universal health care I have ever heard. I never really thought of the fact that once the government manages my Healthcare they will tell me even more of what I am allowed to do with my own body. "If you are gay you are not covered, we don't want to pay for the additional risks" "you have a misdemeanor drug possession on your record, you can never get Healthcare, because we don't want to pay for the possible medical costs secondary to your drug use".
That could go poorly.
That literally has only happened with privatized insurance. No one was ever removed from Medicare because they had a preexisting condition that was not profitable to insurers.
We already have a problem with too much individual freedom within our socialized healthcare network. Currently one out of every four dollars attributes to Medicare is going towards treating diabetes, for the most part a completely preventable disease. You aren't seeing diabetics being told they're going to get kicked off Medicare for drinking too much pop.
Diabetes is not a completely preventable disease. You are actually an idiot.
No, you just can't read.....
for the most part a completely preventable disease.
The reason I added "for the most part" is because I understand pedantic people such as yourself can't stop themselves from being idiots.
The only type of diabetes that isn't preventable is type1, which makes up just 5% of the diabetic community in America. The vast majority of Americans who have diabetes could prevent or manage their disease with the moderation of diet and exercise.
Type 1 = Not preventable Type 2 = 90% "Preventable". And of that 90% of people that could have just.. prevented it... it seems if it was that easy they would have just done it. But maybe there are some comorbidities like thyroid issues, eating disorders, or just straight up depression, those all being other medical issues that got them to the state they are. Honestly, poverty leads to fat people as well. It is expensive to not eat like shit in the US. But, maybe you are right, people just need to stop being fatties and pull themselves up by the bootstraps Mr. Internet Man.
And before you think I dug my heels in against universal health care I didn't. (That is where this conversation started) I have been on that bandwagon for decades. But the government making laws about what you can and can't do with your own body with the justification being the Healthcare costs is terrifying and something I haven't really thought about. It is one thing if they say you are not covered for it (although that is a dangerous avenue as well), but to make a law stating you are or aren't allowed to do something is scary. As for the diabetes, you made a shitty comment with no compassion or empathy to other people's struggles. I don't care about the downvotes or internet points, I will stay here and argue as long as you're still replying.
And of that 90% of people that could have just.. prevented it... it seems if it was that easy they would have just done it.
Well, that brings us back to the original point. That our government ignores the capitalization of addictive harmful substances to the peril of our society's over all health.
But maybe there are some comorbidities like thyroid issues, eating disorders, or just straight up depression
All of which can be improved with a regiment of healthy diet and exercise....... A lot of our problem with diabetes is that we over prescribe medications without attempting to manage things like activity level or diet.
stop being fatties and pull themselves up by the bootstraps Mr. Internet Man.
Weren't you the one who was just preaching about personal responsibilities? My claim is that the government should have more input over consumables that negatively impact the country's overall health. How does that equivocate to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps"?
But the government making laws about what you can and can't do with your own body with the justification being the Healthcare costs is terrifying and something I haven't really thought about.
What, you want everything to be made of asbestos? Or are you upset that the government banned you from working in mines as a child?
Part of a governments responsibility is to protect it's citizens from companies selling exceedingly dangerous or harmful products.
As for the diabetes, you made a shitty comment with no compassion or empathy to other people's struggles.
Calling a preventable disease preventable is just accurate. Your current virtue signaling is just a vain response to being corrected.
You don't help any patient by lying to them about their own health, or withholding the most advantages treatment options. Sometimes the best medicine is just hard truths.
Just make sure you apply this consistently and you also ban all other non essential recreational activities that have an higher than average risk of injury.
Just think of all the money the healthcare system could save if you simply banned fun.
I am not necessarily for a ban, but pointing out that it's not a decision that doesn't affect others.
I personally believe in harm reduction. Alcohol? drugs? Smoking? Sex work?
Focus on reducing harm and the negative impacts become much less.
The effect on others is no more relevant than those of a myriard of other recreational activity and certainly doesn't justify a flat ban.
It may not justify a flat ban, and such heavy handed measures often fail, as this one has.
Perhaps instead we could focus on harm reduction? The amount of tar and nicotine in commercially available cigarettes today is astronomical compared to historically available tobacco.
"In the 1970s, Brown & Williamson cross-bred a strain of tobacco to produce Y1, a strain containing an unusually high nicotine content, nearly doubling from 3.2 to 3.5%, to 6.5%."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco#Contemporary
The average cigarette today has around 10.2mg of nicotine.
We do not ban people from driving cars, but we have laws that require seat belts.
We do not ban drinking alcohol but we have responsible service laws, age limits, and don't allow driving while intoxicated.
We do not ban extreme sports, but we have mandates for helmets and protective gear.
Not having these measures in place affects everyone.
By all means, smoking is disgusting and should be reduces. But that's really not my point.
Your point was originally that it doesn't affect others, and we were discussing the ways that it does, and how those negative effects might be reduced.
I'm actually really glad to see these sorts of exchanges here more and more.
I love lemmy. <3
So first it doesn't affect others, now it does but it doesn't matter? The effect on others is cancer, friend. Not to mention it stinks. Smoking is "fun", according to you? Yeah, calling bullshit. At best, you're a troll. At worst...
Smoking is βfunβ, according to you? Yeah, calling bullshit.
Look who's never smoked and fancies themself an opinion.
Smoking feels incredible.
Those effects are about as much as any other activity you do in private. Neglibably.
It affect others when you take a walk the woods? Not really. Unless you fall and break a leg and "others" have to come get you in an amblance. Literally every can have some effects on others. But it's ridiclous to pretend that would be a valid argument for a ban.
Smoking is βfunβ, according to you? Yeah, calling bullshit.
A lot of people sure seem to enjoy it. Maybe more pleasure then fun
The effect on others is cancer, friend
If someone smokes in private it causes less cancer than your comments. Banning smoking in public palces isn't the issue, the total ban is.
Not to mention it stinks
So should we ban your mum, too?
This level of neurodeath is the perfect use case for why huffing chemicals should be phased out.
All the other problems you refer to may continue for now
Right, so when they develop health complications due to smoking, they get lowest priority care after everyone else has been treated, right?
By that logic you should also get a lower priroty if you injure yourself during any risky recrational activity.
Like, if you're injury yourself doing something stupid for "fun" ... like, I don't know, playing rugby?
Apprently in your world healthcare is only for people that get sick by totally random chance.
Actually its the world you suggested, I'm just taking the logical next steps.
Iβm just taking the logical next steps.
Giving smokers refunds on their NHS taxes because they die before the really expensive geriatric care kicks in, unlike greedy non-smokers?
No, it was very much you that suggested that healthcare priority should be based on the evaluation of someone's lifestyle choices.
Good. It's not the governments place to ban people from making unhealty decisions when they don't affect others.
If they weren't put last in priority, then their lifestyle choice wouldn't only be affecting them, would it?
Logically obsese people need also go to the back of the line then. Very unhealthy lifestyle, very expensive for the healthcare system. In fact, everyone that perticipates in any non-government sactioned activity, to the back of the line. We need that healthcare for our superior people!
Ok Adolf.
If you want to do cocaine or mushrooms, go ahead. Hell, if you want to smoke on your own property, go ahead. That being said, second-hand smoke is gross and affects everyone around you, and I support a public smoking ban.